November 25, 2009

Valley of Elah

 Not sure why we chose to see this movie the night before Thanksgiving, but everyone kept saying that we should see it.  Tommy Lee Jones is very good in it. 

 Mark had made an amazing dinner.  Fresh oysters and then French onion soup.  We actually saw Star Trek with my daughter while eating and now are watching this more serious movie together.  Charlize Theron is a surprise, not looking like a sex goddess, just a person and a good actress. 

 Thanksgiving tomorrow and we get to sleep in a bit, I’ll get up and go for a run. My son and daughter are hanging out.  Right now.  I like holidays, time when you can hang out with everyone.  Even my mother-in-law who is coming by tomorrow.  We’ll see how she likes the Mexican Thanksgiving thing.  She’s a big fan of mashed potatoes and she may miss them with our rice and plantains.  We’ll see how she holds up.  Change is the only constant.  You’d think she’d know that at nearly eighty.  But that’s the problem.  Women marry men hoping they will change, that they can be trained, men marry women hoping they will stay the same.  Of course, both genders are disappointed. 

 This is such a sad movie, not only are we spending billions of dollars and our children’s futures fighting tow countries that did not attack us, but our sons, the sons of America, come home with their hearts and minds imploded by grief and war and pain.  I wish America would stop fighting and become part of world peace.

dirigir um filme é dar a direção. dirigir um filme é visualizar e comandar a construção de um universo, um tema, uma proposta e comandar tão claramente esta construção junto aos outros artistas que eles o transformam em algo com uma dimensão completamente nova e incontrolável.  dirigir passa portanto por dialogar com o diretor de fotografia, o diretor de arte, o produtor e, em especial, com os atores. um diretor que ignore a preparação e direção dos atores está deixando de lado uma das dimensões artísticas mais relevantes para a veracidade e beleza de uma obra cinematográfica.

dentro do método e da maneira que estudamos e ensinamos no actor studio sp brasil, atuar e dirigir atores são duas funções dentro de uma mesma equipe. é impossível atuar sem entender o ofício do diretor e vice-versa. o diretor está para o ator assim como o maestro está para a orquestra. da mesma forma que um maestro sabe perfeitamente identificar o que determinado músico deveria fazer para se alcançar o resultado desejado, ao diretor não pode  bastar simplesmente saber se a cena ‘funciona’ ou não. é preciso saber identificar em que ponto o ator está pecando e como dialogar com este ator para conseguir o que se quer sem que isto se torne algo mecânico, coreografado.  da mesma forma, um ator experiente não terá dificuldades em dialogar com outro ator orientando-o para a direção que visualiza para o filme.

em hollywood, não são poucos os atores que se aventuram, com sucesso, na direção de filmes. sean penn, clint eastwood, robert redford, denzel washington, jodie foster são só alguns dos nomes mais notórios, alguns sendo indicados ou até vencendo oscars de melhor direção.  seus filmes são quase sempre centrados na atuação, mas não por isso menos visualmente arrebatadores. talvez seja a ‘fome por participação criativa, a fome de arte’ que tommy lee jones (outro ator que se envereda pelos caminhos da direção) se referiu. talvez seja simplesmente a sensibilidade de grandes artistas, que já dominaram a técnica de atuação e que se valem da sensibilidade e experiência para interagir da mesma forma com os artistas das outras áreas.

quer ver mais filmes com diretores-atores? confira: ‘menina de ouro’ ou ’sobre meninos e lobos’, ‘gran torino’ de clint eastwood, ou ‘na natureza selvagem’ de sean penn.

Le tre sepolture, diretto e interpretato da Tommy Lee Jones, è un bell’esempio di un film indipendente americano che non ha bisogno di strutture complesse come il viaggio dell’eroe, ma si accontenta di meccanismi più essenziali per portare avanti la narrazione (e l’interesse dello spettatore). Qualche flashback e un protagonista, il Pete con il volto di T.L. Jones, che ha promesso a un amico che, se fosse morto, l’avrebbe riportato in Messico. In più, un paio di personaggi con mancanze palesi (il poliziotto troppo ottuso e la moglie troppo sola) che incuriosiscono per il loro sviluppo potenziale, su uno script piuttosto originale che sa condurti dove non ti aspetteresti – senza forzature.

Può essere utile riepilogare alcuni possibili espedienti strutturali elementari utili ad agganciare lo spettatore a una storia anche quando non vogliamo usare gabbie più articolate come il viaggio dell’eroe:

1) Una destinazione: i protagonisti si propongono di raggiungere un luogo, con o senza una motivazione per andarci;

2) Un personaggio con una forte mancanza: più tipico delle favole, comprendiamo che un personaggio vuole qualcosa e seguiamo i suoi sforzi (o le sue esitazioni) per ottenerlo;

3) Una scadenza: al termine di un certo periodo succederà qualcosa che noi aspettiamo;

4) Un mistero: vogliamo scoprire chi ha fatto qualcosa, non per forza un omicidio.

Certo neanche questi espedienti elementari sono indispensabili. Ma, in linea di massima, sono utili a dare una direzione comprensibile alla storia; inoltre, il finale diventerà “percepibile” per il solo fatto che la condizione iniziale è risolta: es. i nostri sono arrivati a destinazione.

Si può fare a meno anche di queste strutture minime. Come in alcuni film europei, la nostra storia può essere un flusso di eventi di cui scegliamo arbitrariamente inizio e fine, senza che questi “tagli” abbiano necessariamente significato. Il rischio, però, è quello di non agganciare lo spettatore distratto e creare una storia che sarà molto probabilmente percepita come noiosa e inconcludente.

El Variety nos dice esta mañana de que Tommy Lee Jones ya no será parte del casting para la película “The Lincoln Lawyer”.

Tommy la iba a protagonizar y dirigir con el actor Matthew McConaughey para el estudio Lakeshore Entertaining. Esta cinta estaba basada en la novela escrita por Michel Connelly. El actor se salió del proyecto por unas diferencias que no pudieron ser resueltas sobre el guión.

El tan mencionado guión fue escrito por John Romano y ahora el plan del estudio es encontrar a otro director con la esperanza de que la fecha de filmación de la siguiente primavera no se vea afectada.

Joel y Ethan Coen son prácticamente los inventores del cine independiente. Desde su ópera prima, Sangre fácil (1984), hasta la recientemente premiada con el Oscar al mejor filme del año 2008, estamos ante un dúo que es esencial a la hora de hablar de la historia de la cultura visual en Norteamérica.

Son contados los casos que recogen los historiadores con respecto de la asociación de dos hermanos en la manufacturación de un filme. El caso más célebre es el de los hermanos Taviani (Padrone, padrone) en Italia. Acaso el más trillado sea el de los hermanos Wachowsky, que crearon la trilogía de The matrix. También funciona comercialmente el tándem de los hermanos Farrely, autores de las burdas Loco por Mary, Tonto y retonto, Irene, yo y mi otro yo.

Los comienzos de la carrera de los hermanos Coen ha sido dictada por los parámetros de la independencia económica y artística: presupuestos mínimos, apretados cronogramas de rodaje y actores poco conocidos. Como sucede con todo cine independiente, al final se vuelve dependiente del sistema, por lo que los Coen han terminado filmando con estrellas como George Clooney (Oh brother where are thou?, Intolerable cruelty) y Tom Hanks (El cuarteto de la muerte). Fue a partir de esta última película, estrenada en el 2004, cuando recién ambos hermanos pudieron firmar como directores. Antes de ese año, había una estricta prohibición gremial que impedía que más de una persona firmara como director. La autoría grupal (en este caso, dual) era desconocida en la legislación cinematográfica norteamericana. Antes de The lady killers (como se le conoció a El quinteto de la muerte), Ethan Coen sólo aparecía como guionista y productor.

Inventario de una carera memorable

Raising Arizona (1987) significó explorar en tono de comedia los roles familiares. Nicolas Cage interpreta a un ex presidiario que, al juntarse con una policía (Holly Hunter), deciden raptar a un bebé para poder llenar el nido de pareja.

The Hudscucker Proxy (1994) es una comedia sobre el mundo industrial. Con ciertos tintes chaplinescos de Tiempos modernos, los hermanos Coen hacen una crítica al sistema mecánico de producción en serie. El rol del tonto útil lo interpreta Tim Robbins que tiene que enfrentarse contra el líder industrial, interpretado por el fallecido Paul Newman.

En The Big Lebowski (1994), los hermanos Coen realizan una disparatada comedia protagonizada por Jeff Bridges. Él interpreta el rol de The Dude que es un vago que vive en los Angeles y que un día es confundido por un par de matones con el millonario Jeff Lebowski. Tras propinarle una paliza y orinarle en la alfombra, The Dude iniciará la búsqueda del Gran Lebowski para que le compre una alfombra nueva. Se trata de uno de los filmes más logrados de la larga carrera de estos hermanos.

En el año 2000 realizan otra obra maestra, O brother where are thou? (Oh, hermano, ¿dónde estás?), que se basa libremente en La Odisea de Homero. Los directores declararon de manera relajada que jamás leyeron el libro original. Detrás de esta broma hay una verdad: toda gran adaptación siempre debe derribar el texto original. El rol principal estuvo en manos de George Clooney que logró una de las mejores perfomances de su carrera interpretando a Ulysses McGrath.

En el año 2001 este par de hermanos logra uno de los puntos más altos de sus carreras. Estrenan The man who wasn´t there (El hombre que no estuvo allí). Esta película está en blanco y negro, iluminada al estilo de los años cuarenta, y está protagonizada por Billy Bob Thornton. Éste interpreta a un peluquero que se ve envuelto en un hecho de sangre (típico del cine de los Coen) y su repetorio de gestos (entre la apatía y el desdén) es un homenaje al mejor Humphrey Bogart.

En el 2003 Intolerable cruelty significó retomar a George Clooney como actor principal. Se trata de una comedia sentimental de enredos en la que un abogado experto en divorcios termina casándose con una manipuladora muy bien encarnada por Catherine Zeta Jones.

En el 2006 los hermanos Coen realizan el corto titulado Tullerías para un gran filme llamado Yo te amo París. Ellos forman parte de un equipo de dieciocho directores que realizan minúsculas historias de mayúscula calidad que son un homenaje a la ciudad luz. Steve Buscemi es en esta pequeña historia un turista que se encuentra en una estación de metro de París. Mientras espera el medio de transporte revisa postales y libros comprados en el Louvre, además de una guía de la populosa ciudad. Frente a él, del otro lado de la estación observa a una pareja de jóvenes tener una pelea sentimental. Sin proponérselo, el turista terminará formando parte de un triángulo tan absurdo como violento. Se trata de una ácida crítica a las metrópolis y a las percepciones equivocadas de los países ajenos al de uno.

Quizá los mejores títulos de esta fulgurante carrera sean tres: Fargo (1996), Miller´s crossing (1990) y Barton Fink (1991). La primera, que lleva la falsa pero irónica advertencia de estar ante una historia real, le dio al Oscar a Frances McDormand (esposa de Joel) como la detective embarazada que resuelve un hecho de sangre; la segunda, incursiona en el género de los filmes de mafia con muchos tintes líricos; la tercera, con John Turturro (actor fetiche de los Coen), disecciona irónicamente el mundo de los guionistas de Hollywoodlandia de los años cincuenta. Barton Fink ganó la Palma de Oro en el Festival de Cannes y terminó consagrando en Europa al gran dúo de artistas.

No country for old men

Vamos ahora a comentar la reciente cinta de estos hermanos Caradura que ganó cuatro premios Oscar (mejor filme, mejor director, mejor actor secundario y mejor guión adaptado). Basada en la novela del ganador del Premio Pulitzer, Cormac McCarthy, No country for old men es un análisis de una sociedad norteamericana cada vez más sumida en una franca decadencia y obsesionada por la competencia económica y la ansiedad por el estatus. Las brechas generacionales se hacen cada vez más grandes, parece decirnos el sheriff Ed Tom Bell, personaje de Tommy Lee Jones, al principio y al final de la historia. Mientras se aprecian paisajes desolados de Texas, se escucha la voz en off de Jones que encarna al sheriff del condado muy respetuoso de los valores tradicionales. Esa voz se muestra nostálgica por un pasado en el que no se necesitaban armas de fuego para hacer cumplir la ley, en contraste con un presente en el que el narcotráfico es una bomba de tiempo en las fronteras.

La droga conlleva una ambición desmedida por el dinero fácil. Esto llega a convertirse en la premisa dramática del filme. Josh Brolin interpreta a Lewellyn Moss, un ex combatiente de Vietnam que se encuentra por casualidad dos millones de dólares. Aquí entra en escena el personaje más fascinante del filme, Anton Cigurh, interpretado por el ganador del Oscar al mejor actor secundario, Javier Bardem. El actor español encarna a uno de los personajes mejor elaborados que ha dado el cine norteamericano en los últimos años. Se trata de un sicario despiadado que representa el lado opuesto del sheriff, carece de valores, es un perfecto sicópata que mata sin piedad a toda persona que se le cruza en el camino. Aquí también entra una modernización de las técnicas de matanza: Cigurh mata con una pistola de aire conectada a un tanque de oxígeno. Sin embargo, su sicopatía no le impide tener ciertos valores, como por ejemplo, un alto sentido del profesionalismo. Misión que se le encarga, es misión cumplida, aunque esta vez él también quiere quedarse con el dinero, al igual que el personaje de Josh Brolin. Hay también un respeto hacia el azar o buena fortuna en la escena en la que decide si debe matar o no a alguien echando una moneda al aire. Esta pincelada de humor negro hace de éste un personaje más rico.

El sentido de la historia es evidente: se nos presenta como una crítica a una sociedad cada vez más arribista. El pisotear al otro no es más que un deporte nacional y global. La carrera por el dinero hace que todos antagonicen entre sí. Es una nación que ha enseñado a sus ciudadanos que la acumulación del capital es la razón de existir. De allí que en esta crítica al american way of life salga indemne únicamente el personaje del sheriff que tiene una conversación vital en la última escena. Es una charla entre viejos que habla de la nostalgia de los que se fueron. Es una constatación de que Norteamérica no es un país para ellos. El título en español, No hay lugar para los débiles, resulta acertado en la medida que estamos ante personajes aguerridos, ambiciosos, que se embarcan en una empresa que debe ser concluida. Norteamérica exige que sus ciudadanos sean osados y que no escatimen esfuerzos pisoteando la cabeza de alguien para llegar a la cima. Vale el Oscar.

I’ve been on a bit of a documentary kick lately. I’ve already talked about I.O.U.S.A. and I just finished Maxed Out, which takes on personal debt and the credit card companies as opposed to the national debt. Just like I.O.U.S.A. it serves as a wake-up call for financial responsibility. I first had this wake-up call after attending a Dave Ramsey, Financial Peace class about a year ago and I can’t stress enough how important is for the individual to maintain financial responsibility. Debt is crushing people out there so I suggest you take control before it comes down on you. One probem I had with Maxed Out is that they never told the consumer to take control of their finances. All the film did was points it’s finger at the big, bad credit card companies and debt collectors and while I agree that these companies take advantage of consumers, I also believe that these consumers have the opportunity to avoid a lot of this if only they would take financial responsibility and control

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room was another pretty fantastic film. It seems like between this one, I.O.U.S.A. and Maxed Out we cover governmental financial irresponsibility, corporate financial irresponsibility, and personal financial irresponsibility. So that makes for a nice trio. It’s a very interesting film and it leaves you with a pretty good understanding of why that company was destined to fail.

I also just recently saw Harvard Beats Yale 29-29. Certainly an interesting little documentary about an extremely interesting football game. It’s wild how many people are mentioned as being associated with the team, who went on to become quite famous. People like George W. Bush, Al Gore, Meryl Streep, Tommy Lee Jones, and Garry Trudeau. I also was very impressed to learn about Brian Dowling. Dowling was the inspiration for B.D. in Trudeau’s Doonesbury comic and up to the point of that tie, there had not been a game in which Dowling had started and finished and been on the losing team since the 7th grade. That is just amazing. I do not know how he fared collegiately from a W-L standpoint after the Harvard game, but that’s a remarkable feat. He didn’t fare too well in the NFL though.

I also just watched Super High Me, which chronicles comedian Doug Benson’s “investigation” into the affects of marijuana on the human body and mind. Inspired by Morgan Spurlock’s Super Size Me, Benson takes it on himself to not smoke marijuana for 30 days while undergoing a litany of tests. Then he follows that up with 30 days where he smokes so much that he’s high during pretty much every waking hour. I think he could have done more in the way of medical testing. I exaggerated when I used the term “litany”. There is also a point where the DEA is raiding and shutting down medicinal marijuana dispensaries and I believe he should have done more to show the legality of those actions. Yes, the filmmaker did point out it was legal with a quick message on the screen, but no one ever dared argue with the protesters who were acting so offended or even ask those tough questions to play devil’s advocate and inspire the protesters to choose their words wisely. At one point you hear a protester yell (Or maybe this is a combination of two quotes) “The DEA isn’t doing their job! Their job is to stay out of California!” …uhhh, how remarkably stupid is that? That is the DEA’s job? Well why isn’t someone paying me? I’ve stayed out of California my whole life. In this film we also see Sarah Silverman, Patton Oswalt (of Big Fan fame), Dave Navarro, and the apparent Prince of Pot, Marc Emery. (Who knew?)

So do I feel more educated? Well, I dunno. I certainly prefer the classroom. Not in the sense that it’s more enjoyable, or easier to have a conversation about. But in the sense that if you take a class on a topic you should leave it with a pretty solid foundation of knowledge. These films are great for digging that hole for you to pour that foundation, but they are not a foundation. For one they are almost always biased. Maybe the bias is subtle (I.O.U.S.A.) or maybe the bias is obvious (Super High Me). Either way it exists. Yes, I’m sure it exists in the classroom also, but in the class room you spend much more time on the topics, also you are usually sent out to write things like research papers, which encourage you to do your own fact finding. This leads to a more rounded informational intake. Which in itself is probably the main reason the class room is a better way to learn. The breadth of information is much wider. That can’t even be denied so I’m not gonna to even explain myself.

I have another batch of documentaries lined up to watch so maybe in a couple weeks I’ll be doing this again. I don’t see why not. I would suggest all of these if you have plenty of time. It just turns out that the way I ordered them in this blog is probably the same order I’d suggest watching them.

This is another Matt Dillion and Diane Lane movie.  You should watch it.  You also get to see Diane Lane’s boobies.

Wednesday night found me on the mat in my living room, with a brand-new and very intense music mix on my iPod, playing as loud as I wanted it to since no one was going to be home until D&D was over. I ended up doing almost all intuitive flow, and dancing (I came up with something called dancing dog that I can’t wait to share), and very little strict yoga. It was so wonderful, but it also led to intimacy with my body I haven’t felt in a couple of weeks.

This showed me that a lot of things have shifted. My hips have opened even more, my hamstrings are going to keep causing me grief for a long time, and my back is a little less flexy than I expected it to be. There was more – my right-side full pigeon wasn’t nearly as comfortable as the left (attention! there is a quadricep in my right leg!), which is the opposite of the way it used to be; leaning into the very uppermost hip flexors during regular pigeon felt unbelievable, when I’d never really even tried it before; and removing nearly all static holding of poses made my practice seem fresh at every moment.

The thing that I thought of was Tommy Lee Jones.

“1500 years ago, everybody knew the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew the earth was flat, and 15 minutes ago you knew that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.“

I knew abstractly that my body was different on every day of my life, but I never saw it in action before now. It was very interesting.

The other thing that occurred to me…Up until now I’ve been trying to lengthen and stretch out so that I can do poses more easily and comfortably. A natural consequence is that I get more flexible, and hence more advanced, and that means I can do more and more difficult poses. I realized suddenly, as I was working into hanuman over my new bolster (SO love having a bolster at home), that at this rate I will…run out of things to try. I mean, it’s impossible to “run out” of yoga, or to discover every lineage and every style, or to “master”…well, anything. But being at the point when I can pretzel up into any kind of pose I want – where’s the fun in that? Where’s the challenge and the reward? Is that really what I want?

Before I left for teacher training, I did a home practice that gave me a discovery that was somewhat the opposite. I was doing (surprise) pigeon, and really, the amount of growth I’ve seen in that pose in 18 months is just astonishing. I practiced it regularly, trying hard at it, striving to get myself into it, and eventually the tight muscles loosened and I found comfort in it rather than tightness and strain. Comfort in the pose led to relaxation of all the surrounding muscles, which led to even greater opening. This meant that I had the luxury of breathing in the pose, allowing my mind to be tranquil in the pose, feeling all of its subtleties, instead of just thinking OH CHRIST THIS IS A TIGHT SQUEEZE IS IT OVER YET?

So I realized that it wasn’t so much about advancing as it was about finding that sweet spot, the place where you’re comfortable enough in the pose that you can really learn it, find all of its nooks and crannies. The thing is, you pretty much have to advance in order to find it, because if you’re tight and inflexible it will be hard to concentrate on the pose rather than your own unhappiness at being in the squeeze. But advancing for the sake of achieving the pose is a whole different thing, I believe, than advancing to find comfort in the pose. The first is competitive; the second is reflective of sthira sukham asanam.

You know, maybe those discoveries aren’t so opposite after all.

John Flynn es un director del que casi nadie se acuerda ya, lo que tampoco es de extrañar porque desde finales de los 80 su carrera transcurrió sin sobresaltos de subproducto en subproducto, de Stallone a Seagal y filmo por que me toca, artesano apañado que despachaba acción rudimentaria sin más ni más… y fue una pena. John Flynn daba para más, filmó a principios de los 70 “The Outfit” que fue un fracaso y ahora es título de culto y que suponía una revisión de la novela de Richard Stark ( o Donald E. Westlake, como prefieran) que dio pie a la sensacional “A quemarropa” pero sin todo el andamiaje estilístico que había construido Boorman, Flynn ya dejaba claro cuales eran sus maneras: la artesanía, la falta de florituras, el camino directo y la modestia del profesional dedicado al género.  Aun así Flynn no es uno de esos grandes olvidados cuyos méritos comienzan ahora a revalorizarse, tampoco. Está tristemente menospreciado pero no fue un grandísimo director, ni siquiera hizo nunca una gran película perdida, pero tuvo sus momentos, eso desde luego y sabía rodar, que no es poco. Con una diferencia de diez años entre décadas John Flynn dejó rodados con su profesionalidad acorazada dos de los más contundentes y vibrante thrillers de los 70 y 80, “Rolling Thunder” y “Best Seller”, entre ellos no tienen nada que ver, donde uno pone naturalismo crudo el otro presenta estilización genérica, mientras el primero es hijo de su tiempo, el segundo parece ir en contra del mismo, la única relación es la honestidad de su propuesta, una honestidad que parece desaparecida del cine comercial.

“No hay Dios en México”

El ex-preso de Corea (Rolling Thunder)

Año: 1977

País: Estados Unidos

95 min.

Fotografía: Jordan Cronenweth

Música: Barry De Vorzon

Guión: Paul Schrader y Heywood Gould

Reparto: William Devane, Linda Haynes, Tommy Lee Jones, Dabney Colleman, Lisa Blake Richards, James Best

Una notable película de venganzas casi convertida en clásico del sub-género sobre guión del tremendo Paul Schrader, que al parecer no quedó muy satisfecho del resultado tildándolo de racista y fascistoide, aunque en realidad no esté tan lejos (si que es más primario eso desde luego y carece de la capacidad de introspección necesaria para dar la vuelta al discurso) de otros títulos suyos presididos también por esa atracción ambigua por el abismo, pienso en la misma Taxi Driver” o en especial en la terriblemente cruda, obsesiva y enfermiza “Hardcore: un mundo oculto”, revisitación repleta de culpa universal y neurosis de los preceptos del legendario “Centauros del desierto” ambientándolos en el submundo de las pequeñas producciones pornográficas visto a través del torturado prisma ultrarreligioso  del padre desesperado al que interpreta un descomunal George C. Scott. En cualquier caso este contundente “Rolling Thunder” (el título español es ciertamente inexplicable) se adhiere con fuerza a la cara más incómoda del gran “thriller” americano setentero, la que miraba a la bestia interior al tiempo que guiñaba el ojo a los instintos más bajos de la audiencia.Así John Flynn da lo mejor de si con un estilo contundente y sin florituras para entregar un film rabioso, repleto de nervio, sordidez sin adulterar, un pie en la demencia y encima claveteado por momentos de una violencia estremecedora. Historia de un desubicado prisionero de guerra y anti-héroe repulsivo al que interpreta el magnífico William Devane (actor de rictus permanentemente desagradable y despreciativo que se revela todo un acierto, pese a todas sus penurias nunca llegamos a sentirnos junto a el, su misma presencia física provoca rechazo y pone en guardia), que vuelve a casa, tras varios años de cautiverio, profundamente trastornado y alienado. Premiado y agasajado sufrirá un brutal asalto a su casa por parte de unos criminales mexicanos que quieren lo dólares de plata que le regalaron. Todo termina con el asesinato de su mujer (que le había sido infiel y ahora le tiene pavor, un detalle nada baladí, que subraya tanto el carácter del personaje como su cualidad de desclasado) e hijo y la bestial amputación de una mano triturador de basuras por medio en una escena francamente insoportable.

Paradójicamente este acto aberrante terminará por dar verdadero sentido a su nueva existencia: la venganza. Liado con una muchacha también en plena huída (lo que propicia la inclusión de una historia de amor más bien poco satisfactoria) y montado en su Chevrolet por los servicios prestados, reclutará a un antiguo compañero de armas al que interpreta un joven y más que torvo Tommy Lee Jones y se sumergirá camino a un baño de sangre en la frontera, ese territorio a la vez físico y mítico para los americanos. Simbólico purgatorio repleto de horrores donde cualquier maldad es posible y en el que por igual se cometen los pecados y se expían las culpas, el “meridiano de sangre” en palabras de Cormac McCarthy, una mística largamente explorada por el cine (la reciente y espléndida “Los tres entierros de Melquíades Estrada” dirigida por el mismo Lee Jones, sin ir más lejos) , la literatura y la música norteamericana, unas veces desde la paranoia, otra desde la opción vital.

Flynn apura el naturalismo más rugoso, incorpora algunos apuntes interesante y malsanos sobre le fetichismo de los objetos (las armas artesanalmente preparadas, el uniforme, las gafas de aviador y por supuesto el garfio) y acepta influencias del Peckinpah de “Quiero la cabeza de Alfredo García” pero sin lirismo y también de los films de/con Bronson aunque con un sentido bien distinto, nada heroico o glorificador y más bien desesperado.

“Alguien ha escrito mi vida en una canción”

Best Seller

Año: 1987

País: Estados Unidos

110 min.

Fotografía: Fred Murphy

Música: Jay Ferguson

Guión: Larry Cohen

Reparto: James Woods, Brian Dennehy, Victoria Tennant, Allison Balson, Paul Shaenar

Un film con una premisa genial parcialmente malograda, obra por cierto del siempre interesante e imprevisible Larry Cohen, gloria menor del “fantastique” con unos cuantos títulos de culto en su haber, como “Q, la serpiente voladora”, “¡Está Vivo!” o “Demon”. El asunto a tratar es el proceso de identificación/amistad entre un cínico y gélido asesino a sueldo y un veterano policía ahora metido a exitoso escritor de novelas criminales a la búsqueda de un nuevo éxito. Éxito que el “hitman” le promete si le ayuda a hundir a un hombre de negocios para el que trabajaba y que le traicionó, lo que el policía no sabe es que su nuevo amigo ya le conocía de mucho antes. La turbia relación inicial, el permiso para mirar en sitios realmente oscuros, la sensación de impunidad ante el crimen, las dudas morales, la manipulación, etc… dará paso a una verdadera lealtad que utiliza y subvierte con inteligencia los estilemas de las muy en boga “buddy movies” que hicieron estragos desde mediados de los 80 a principios de los 90 contraponiendo caracteres antitéticos obligados a entenderse, títulos del tipo de la necia saga “Arma letal” o la nada desdeñable y casi fundacional “Límite 48 horas”, descontando otras como “Danko:calor rojo” o “Colegas a la fuerza” con el mismo James Woods instruyendo a Michael J. Fox.

Acoge además afortunadas influencias de la dramaturgia de David Mamet (diálogos cortantes de extraña cadencia musical, ética de los profesionales, engaños, luchas mentales….) y consigue resultar un “thriller” siempre seco y estilizado que se aparta de las corrientes estéticas reinantes (el imperio del manierismo publicitario destruyó la crudeza que había impuesto el policíaco de los 70 diluido entre esteticismo de pose y mucho haz de luz filtrado) a base de elegancia y sencillez formal. Que consigue dejar no pocos apuntes turbios cuando se enfoca con mayor decisión en la relación entre los protagonista, como el empeño de Woods en caer bien (su asesino demuestra ser un ególatra de cuidado y un “fan fatal” encantado de que un tipo al que admira escriba su vida y por ello no oculta ni mínimante su proceder), en ser aceptado como amigo que lelleva a presentarle a su familia o en sobreprotegerle enfermizamente.

Encima está soberbiamente interpretado por una gran pareja de actores que pocas veces han estado mejor, el perpetuamente desaprovechado Brian Dennehy luciendo falsa hosquedad y el gran James Woods más “cool” que nunca, que ya es decir. Por desgracia camina hacia terrenos un tanto formularios en su parte final y a Flynn le falta garra y acaba por desaprovechar o más bien no apurar del todo, el sugestivo argumento. Aun así merece ser redescubierto y está repleto de aciertos.

Demorei o máximo que pude para ver esse filme. Para falar a verdade, eu nem queria ver esse filme. A razão? Medo. Meu maior medo era o hype imenso que esse filme carregava em cima dele. A fita nem tinha começado sua vida nos cinemas e todos já diziam que seria “o melhor filme de todos”. Confesso que sou um pouco (pouco é muito e muito é pouco) chato. Principalmente quando gosto de algo. E sempre gostei dos filmes do Tarantino. Não, eu não acho o cara um gênio. Acho um ótimo e divertido diretor. O maior triunfo do Tarantino é saber lidar bem com o clichê. Algo que todos tentam e a maioria fede ao fazer tentar fazer isso. Tarantino trabalhava numa locadora. Ou seja, estava rodeado pelo clichê o dia inteiro. Afinal, os filmes que costumam passar nas televisões das locadoras são, em sua maioria, algo que se tornou clichê com o tempo. Junte se a isso o seu talento e ironia referente à violência e você têm um ótimo diretor. Seu primeiro roteiro foi “Assassinos por Natureza”/ “Natural Born Killers” (com Juliette Lewis, Robert Downey Jr. e Tommy Lee Jones no elenco) o qual Oliver Stone dirigiu. Talvez seu maior roteiro, mesmo sendo bastante revisado pelo próprio Stone.

O primeiro roteiro de Tarantino já mostra o quanto ele é light.

Também não vi Burn After Reading/Queime Depois de Ler pelo mesmo motivo. Muito é falado antes de o filme ser lançado. E também é de um dos meus cineastas favoritos. O fato dos irmãos Cohen terem entrado no mainstream me assusta até hoje.

Assustado com os Irmão Cohen no mainstream!

Quem já acompanha as peripécias deste blog sabe que costumo mais descer o pau do que elogiar: tirando Y: The Last Man, Ren & Stimpy e Billy & Mandy eu fui só reclamações e maldições. Mas de qualquer forma, não fiz tantas resenhas assim…

Então já deve ter alguém pensando: lá vai esse chato descer o pau no filme. Mas…

…o filme é muito bom! É melhor que Pulp Fiction? Não! É melhor que Kill Bill? É igual e diferente do mesmo modo. Ver um filme do Tarantino tem sempre uma sensação parecida, mais ou menos como ver Kubrick pós-Lolita. A sensação é parecida e os filmes não. Tarantino já conseguiu deixar sua marca no seu modo de fazer filmes. Não sei como explicar, mas quem conhece o trabalho dele já sacou o que eu quis dizer. Assim como Kubrick tinha aquele modo de sempre valorizar aqueles sorrisos aterrorizantes, cenas no banheiro e outras coisas. Não me entendam mal. Não estou comparando um com o outro. Kubrick era um gênio. Um dos maiores da história do cinema. Tarantino ainda não o é. É ótimo e divertido. Mas não sei. Ainda falta algo e tive a impressão de que com Bastardos Inglórios ele deu mostras de que está à procura desse algo mais.

Bastardos Inglórios é o chamado Historical Fiction (ficção histórica). A fita se passa na Segunda Guerra Mundial (entendam que esse era mais um dos meus medos: Nazistas de novo?!). Mas Tarantino não esgotou ainda mais o assunto. O nazismo e a guerra podem passar apenas como coisas secundárias.

Agora, para não falar só de Tarantino, o elenco foi muito bem escolhido. Começando com Christoph Waltz (“Ordinary Decent Criminal” / “Um Criminoso Decente” – vejam esse filme também!) no papel de Hans Landa. Waltz é o melhor no filme. Sua atuação é bárbara e mereceu o Cannes de melhor ator. Michael Fassbender (“Bando of Brothers” e “300”) como Lt. Archie Hicox (o inglês que troca tiros na virilha no pub) muito bem também. Eli Roth (demorei a lembrar quem era esse doidão. Ele faz parte do grupo Splat Pack, que é um grupo de cineastas de filmes de terror que decidiram voltar a fazer filmes de terror mesmo – pesados, “Saw”/ “Jogos Mortais” é de um diretor desse grupo. Eli Roth é o diretor de “O Albergue” que, confesso, não sou fã) é Donny Donowitz / O Urso Judeu, impecável sua ultima aparição na qual ele atira em Hitler até o rosto dele virar pedaços de carne moída no liquidificador. Diane Kruger (a Helena em “Troy” / “Tróia” e Abigail Chase em “A Lenda do Tesouro Perdido”) interpreta Bridget von Hammersmark. Diane Kruger já foi uma modelo de sucesso na década de 90, se não estou enganado. Que bom que deixou de ser modelo, parece que sob a correta direção e em um filme bom (diferente dos citados na qual ele atuou) ela tem talento. Daniel Brühl (“Adeus Lênin” e “The Edukators”) é Fredrick Zoller, ou o herói de guerra alemão. O cara é realmente bom. É só ver os filmes que o cara fez. Til Schweiger (“Tomb Raider” e “Rei Arthur”) é  o alemão que muda de lado. O cara no filme é hilário. Não sabia que o cara era bom (afinal olha os filmes que eu citei que ele fez), mas ele o é. Mélanie Laurent faz Shoshana. Essa eu não conhecia, mas também é muito boa. Omar Doom é Omar Ulmer. Gedeon Burkhard é o tradutor dos Bastardos. B.J. Novak (“The Office”) é o Little Man (não lembro bem como ficou em português, se foi Pequenino ou algo do tipo). Mike Myers (o Austin Powers) é o general inglês que comanda a idéia do assassinato de Hitler. Rod Taylor (“A Máquina do Tempo” de 1960, baseado no livro de H.G. Wells) faz o Wiston Churchil. Denis Menochet (“Hannibal Rising”) faz o fazendeiro francês do inicio do filme. Christian Berkel (“Operação Valquíria”) é o barman do pub onde rola aqueles tiros na virilha. Jacky Ido (esse eu não conheço) faz Marcel. August Diehl (“The Counterfeiters” e “The Ninth Day”, ambos alemães) é o oficial da Gestapo, especialista em sotaques, que troca tiros na virilha. Alexander Fehling (“And Along Come Tourists”, também alemão) é o cara que está comemorando o nascimento do filho onde dão tiros na virilha. Sylvester Groth é Josef Goebbels, ministro da propaganda de Hitler. Groth também interpretou Goebbels na comédia My Leader – The Truly Truest Truth about Adolf Hitler (também alemã). Quem também interpretou Goebbels foi Martin Wuttke – que é Hitler no filme de Tarantino – no filme Rosenstrasse (alemão também, mas se tiverem tempo – e paciência para achar – vejam). Julie Dreyfus (Sofie Fatale em “Kill Bill”) é a interprete francesa de Goebbels. O curioso é que parte do elenco desse filme são também diretores. Um exemplo disso é Enzo G. Castellari que no filme é um general nazista. Castellari é um diretor italiano, conhecido pelos seus Spaghetti Western como Any Gun Can Play, Kill Them All and Come Back Alone, Seven Wichesters For a Massacre e,…, The Inglorious Bastards – Quel maledetto treno blindato. Os bastardos de Castellari e de Tarantino são parecidos. Com certeza o filme de Castellari inspirou Tarantino. Os Bastardos no filme de Castellari são soldados americanos que estão sendo levados para uma prisão militar quando um ataque aéreo alemão acaba os “soltando” ao matar todos os guardas. Os soldados decidem fugir e acabam fazendo parte de um plano que consiste em roubar o giroscópio de um foguete V-2 nazista que se encontra em um trem extremamente protegido por nazistas.

The Ingloriou Bastards de Castellari.

Ué, e o Brad Pitt? Bom, Brad Pitt é um grande ator. Quando ele não faz papéis de heróis entediados ou de galã supersexy (como Aquiles em “Tróia” ou Sr. e Sra. Smith) ele manda muito. É só ver filmes como Thelma & Louise, Across the Tracks, Kalifornia (acho que foi aí onde ele aprendeu esse sotaque que ele tem em Bastardos Inglórios), Interview with the Vampire, Lendas da Paixão, Seven (Sete Pecados Capitais), Os Doze Macacos, Fight Club (Clube da Luta), Snatch (mais uma vez ele faz um sotaque genial), Babel, …, deu para entender, né? Ou seja, quando o papel e o filme é bom, ele arrebenta. Por isso não vou ficar falando o quanto ele foi bem nos Bastardos. Tentei falar mais dos outros que, para a grande maioria, são desconhecidos.

Como não poderia deixar de ser…

Pausa para um lanchinho...

…em filme de tarantino nunca falta sangue e nem Samuel L. Jackson. Ele não atua, mas é o narrador. Poucas vezes narra, é verdade, mas ele está lá.

Minha conclusão é: se não viu, veja por você mesmo. Se já viu, sabe do que estou falando.

  A little over a month ago the entertainment community collectively went “Huh?”  when it was announced that James Franco would be appearing a 2 month long story arc on of all things a Soap Opera.  “This must be a joke” and “It is for research” were thrown about fairly often as possible reasons why JF would have chosen to leave his ivory tower in Hollywood and walk amongst the commoners.  Because when you get right down to it that is how the industry chooses to view Daytime, as commoners.  Someone not worthy of their respect.  Someone to laugh at and mock.  Daytime is so low on the totem pole that some people are even quiet about the fact that they watch them at all because of the laughter that it might illict.  Granted not everybody has been negative in their response to the news, for the most part it has been a range from startling disbelief to a kind of way to go JF.  But still it got me to thinking why doesn’t Daytime earn more respect?

  Some say that soaps are just one long story that keeps replaying itself over and over again.  They say that each story line gets more outlandish than the one before.  Remember the Possesed by the Devil story on Days of Our Lives?  Or perhaps Dixie coming back from the dead for perhaps the millionth time on All My Children?  Plus we aren’t even going to get into the Who’s the daddy? story arcs or the myriad of romantic entaglements that are the crux of the daytime world.  So I guess I can see their point, to an extent.  Because honestly what makes Soaps any different from Primetime or even the very top of the Ivory Tower, Movies?  Can the naysayers honestly tell me that Primetime doesn’t have outlandish storylines?  Can they honestly say that shows like Grey’s Anatomy or Gossip Girl are more respectable for their romatic entanglements than say The Bold & The Beautiful?  Or shows like Fringe and The X-Files are more grounded in reality than say no longer on the air, Passions?  Or why The Sopranos deserves more respect than General Hospital?  The truth is they can’t say any of that because the only differences Primetime and Daytime have are the amount of money the networks are willing to spend on them and and one runs one night a week and gets up to a 3 month hiatus and the other is on 5 days a week and has no hiatus.  And no being blacked out for two weeks, holidays, and weekends do not count. 

   Or it could possibly be the fact that only second rate actors are on Daytime, while all the “real” actors are on Primtime?  Oh wait a minute that can’t be true because Daytime is proud to be one of the few venues that has churned out some of the best actors of the past couple of generations.  What other venue can honestly say that?   But despite that fact Daytime is still considered to be either the place where younger actors get their feet wet or older actors go when they have no other options.  Because as we all know Primetime has no bad actors.  Hey I know how about anyone who feels that Daytime is the blackhole for talent I dare you to go up to Betty White and tell her she doesn’t have any other options or tell Bradford Anderson that GH will be his last stop.  Oh wait a minute I have an even better dare for you.  I dare you to go up to Jennifer Aniston and tell her that the man who plays Victor Kiriakis on DOOL is a bad actor.  Go ahead we will wait because I am sure those of us who are fans of Daytime and those of us who work tirelessly to bring it to fruition could use a good laugh at your judgemental expense.

You know what nevermind Daytime doesn’t need your respect nor do we want it.

I haven’t seen Ashley Judd in a number of years now, but I’ll readily admit I’ve had a secret crush on her for a long time. In 1999, she starred in a movie titled, Double Jeopardy. According to the IMDB Web site the plot line says “a woman framed for her husband’s murder suspects he is still alive; as she has already been tried for the crime, she can’t be re-prosecuted if she finds and kills him.”

I think that’s what we all think about double jeopardy; that no one can be tried for the same crime twice. So what’s with the Motion to Dismiss Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 for Violation of Double Jeopardy Clause filed by Casey Anthony?

First, we’ll have to take a look at the motions filed by the state. There’s no doubt that law enforcement and prosecutors like to throw the book at people to make some of it stick., and Casey Anthony made herself a perfect target for not only the check fraud charges, but the first-degree murder charge in the death of her daughter. It would seem like fraud convictions would be a walk in the park compared to facing execution, but there are reasons why this particular motion was filed by the defense.

Here are the three charges filed for each forged check written:

1. Fraudulent Use Of Personal Identification Information

2. Forgery Of A Check

3. Uttering A Forged Check

x4=12

Another charge was thrown in for good measure:

13. Grand Theft Third Degree

The motion to dismiss states that Casey is guaranteed double jeopardy protection under the United States Constitution as well as the Florida Constitution on the grounds of duplicative charges. Her defense claims that the additional grand theft third degree charge would be tantamount to punishing her for the same crime covered in the other 12 counts. In essence, Casey’s defense team points out that under law, she should be charged for one crime by one count. The defense also claims that charging her with multiple counts for the same act prejudices her, therefore the counts should be dismissed. In other words, she should be charged once each for all three charges and it shouldn’t matter how many bad checks she wrote. That means she should have only been charged with one count of fraudulent use of personal identification information, one count of forgery of a check and one count of uttering a forged check. No matter how many checks she wrote, they should all fall under the same umbrella of charges.

According to the motion, “Miss Anthony is guaranteed double jeopardy protection by the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Sections 9 and 17 of the Florida Constitution for duplicative charges.” Let’s take a look at what the law says:

Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 8

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Florida Constitution – Article 1, Sections 9 and 17

SECTION 9.  Due process.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.

SECTION 17.  Excessive punishments.

Excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishment, attainder, forfeiture of estate, indefinite imprisonment, and unreasonable detention of witnesses are forbidden. The death penalty is an authorized punishment for capital crimes designated by the legislature. The prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, shall be construed in conformity with decisions of the United States Supreme Court which interpret the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment provided in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any method of execution shall be allowed, unless prohibited by the United States Constitution. Methods of execution may be designated by the legislature, and a change in any method of execution may be applied retroactively. A sentence of death shall not be reduced on the basis that a method of execution is invalid. In any case in which an execution method is declared invalid, the death sentence shall remain in force until the sentence can be lawfully executed by any valid method. This section shall apply retroactively.

The double jeopardy rule of the Fifth Amendment is intended to limit abuse by the government in repeated prosecution for the same offense as a means of harassment or oppression. It is also in agreement with the common law concept ofres judicata which prevents courts from relitigating issues which have already been the subject of a final judgment. There are three essential protections included in the double jeopardy principle, which are:

• being retried for the same crime after an acquittal
• retrial after a conviction
• being punished multiple times for the same offense

Does the defense motion to dismiss those extra charges, something it sees as ancillary in nature, hold any merit? In Solem v. Helm (1983) 463 U.S. 277, a split court found that a life sentence without the possibility of parole for a seventh nonviolent felony was unconstitutional. In Solem, a bare majority of the court held a court’s proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, including the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.

In Harmelin v. Michigan (1991) 501 U.S. 957, a life sentence without possibility of parole for possessing 672 grams of cocaine was upheld. The case produced five separate opinions. While seven justices supported a proportionality review under the Eighth Amendment, only four favored application of all three factors cited in Solem. As one court has concluded, disproportionality survives; Solem does not. (McGruder v. Puckett (5th Cir.’92) 954 F.2d 313, 316.) In Harmelin, Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, determined Solem was wrongly decided and the Eighth Amendment contained no proportionality guarantee. Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices O’Connor and Souter, found the Eighth Amendment encompassed a narrow proportionality principle. In other words, the Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence. Rather, it forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime. Moreover, in Solem v. Helm, the court focused on the nonviolent nature of both the defendant’s current offense of uttering a ‘no account’ check (one of the most passive felonies a person could commit) and his prior offenses. The majority acknowledged a life sentence for fourth-time heroin dealers and other violent criminals would pass constitutional muster.

What all of this legalese means, in my interpretation of law, is that Casey should be tried once for each of the three charges. If she is acquitted of the first 3 charges, the case should not be allowed to proceed. On the other hand, if she is convicted of the first 3 charges, the additional charges should no longer be relevant and she should be sentenced for just those 3. I understand the logic, but is it really constitutional? Suppose she is convicted on all 13 charges. She faces a long time in prison on each separate conviction. In essence, she could be sentenced to spend her remaining years behind bars. Also, as 13 separate convictions, she would be considered an habitual offender. Could she be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole as such? I believe she could. What we have to consider is not just this case, but prior cases and the issue of extreme sentences for others beyond the State of Florida v. Casey Marie Anthony. As much as many may want the book thrown at her, in its wisdom, the court does not see prejudice. It sees a defendant and the charges against her. She has the law on her side as much as it may or may not help her.

The defense motion cited Florida Statute Section 775.021 (4), which states that, “Whoever, in the course of one criminal transaction or episode, commits an act or acts which constitute one or more separate criminal offenses, upon conviction and adjudication of guilt, shall be sentenced separately for each criminal offense; and the sentencing judge may order the sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively. For the purposes of this subsection, offenses are separate if each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not, without regard to the accusatory pleading or the proof adduced at trial.”

I read that as meaning the offenses are separate from each other. In other words, each of Amy’s forged checks are really the same crime on different dates. As such, they should be charged as one crime because the Fifth Amendment forbids multiple punishments for the same offense. In Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299 (1932), the Supreme Court held that punishment for two statutory offenses arising out of the same criminal act or transaction does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if ‘each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.’ Separate punishments in multiple criminal prosecution are constitutionally permissible, however, if the punishments are not based upon the same offenses. Are they the same offenses? According to Florida law (Florida Statute Section 775.021 [4][b]), the intent of the Legislature is to convict and sentence for each criminal offense committed in the course of one criminal episode or transaction and not to allow the principle of lenity as set forth in subsection (1) to determine legislative intent. Exceptions to this rule of construction are:

1.  Offenses which require identical elements of proof.

2.  Offenses which are degrees of the same offense as provided by statute.

3.  Offenses which are lesser offenses the statutory elements of which are subsumed by the greater offense.

I think it’s very clear why the defense filed this motion and it’s a very good one. Let’s move on and take a look at Casey’s grand jury indictment last October.

On October 14, 2008, Casey Marie Anthony was indicted by the State of Florida on these separate charges:

1) FIRST DEGREE MURDER (CAPITAL)

2) AGGRAVATED CHILD ABUSE (F1-L9)

3) AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER OF A CHILD (F1-L10)

4) PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

5) PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

6) PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

7) PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

Yes, she was charged with premeditated first-degree murder under Florida Statute 782.04:

Murder.

(1)(a)  The unlawful killing of a human being:

1.  When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being

While we ponder the legality of the latest double jeopardy motion, take a look at the above indictment charges. How can a person be charged with murder and manslaughter*? Why are there four separate charges pertaining to providing false information to a law enforcement officer? Mark my words, when the murder case heats up more, we are going to see a slew of motions filed to throw out some of the charges. What will happen? It certainly is within the realm of possibility, but on the other hand, allow me to look at the April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing which killed 168 people and was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the 9/11 attacks. I don’t need to go into any detail of what transpired. This is purely about the charges, the trial, and the conviction.

On August 10, 1995, Timothy McVeigh was indicted on 11 federal counts, including conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosives and 8 counts of first-degree murder. On June 2, 1997, McVeigh was found guilty on all 11 counts of the federal indictment. He was executed by lethal injection at 7:14 a.m. on June 11, 2001, at the U.S. Federal Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana.

You may wonder why I chose this particular crime. To be honest, the double jeopardy motion has nothing to do with Caylee’s murder at this time. This is an entirely separate case, but I am looking at legal comparisons and how they could influence each trial, fraud and murder.

My Opinion

Despite killing 168 people, McVeigh was only charged with 8 murders. In my opinion, Casey Anthony will lose her Motion to Dismiss Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 for Violation of Double Jeopardy Clause. Why? If Timothy McVeigh’s attorneys used the same logic and prevailed in a similar motion to dismiss the counts by reducing the eight murder charges to one, that means out of 168 deaths he was responsible for, he would have been tried for one single murder and the entire weight of those deaths would have been reduced from 8 to 1. Would he have been sentenced to death for one murder? With Casey, it’s the same thing in my book, although the charges are not similar. I am merely making an analogy. Each forged check is a separate crime. The only charge I would consider dropping is the Grand Theft Third Degree. I think it’s extra icing on a 12-layer cake. One thing the judge may consider, and only if Casey is convicted on all counts, is to follow maximum sentencing guidelines allowed by the state, but to condense those 12 charges into 3 at sentencing. In other words, allow all of the convictions to stand, but don’t sentence each one individually. Of course, the judge should use his own discretion when deciding the imposition of concurrent or consecutive sentences and I am not concerned with that particular aspect. Regardless of what he decides, Casey will be locked away for a long time if she is convicted of these charges alone. I realize how unpopular my view will be with readers, but we must remember, when Casey stands trial on the fraud charges, she will not be convicted of anything yet and the court will not take Caylee’s death into consideration. Who else, other than Casey, would you want to spend a life in prison over stolen checks that amounted to less than $1,000?

On a final note, I think we’re all Jonesing for the fraud trial to begin. Any trial, actually, and speaking of Jonesing, wasn’t Tommy Lee Jones Ashley Judd’s costar in Double Jeopardy? Yup, he was. Too bad justice doesn’t always work the same way as it does in Hollywood. Casey Anthony’s role would have been written out of the script right after the opening credits. In the real world, that’s not the way it works.

*Amended by Maura on 2009/11/13 at 12:40 pm: According to a lawyer who comments over on Blink’s site, Florida law requires the inclusion of a lesser crime when a person is indicted for a capital offense. That’s why Casey was charged with aggravated manslaughter of a child in addition to first degree murder.

On the surface, it appears that the jurors will be allowed to convict Casey of both first degree murder (homicide with premeditation) and manslaughter (homicide without premeditation), which can’t logically both be true relative to the same homicide.

The resolution to that contradiction will be in the instructions to the jurors.

PLEASE VOTE FOR ME!

2006: A Prairie Home Companion di Robert Altman

“Il racconto di ciò che accade dietro le quinte di uno dei più importanti show radiofonici andato in onda in America a partire dal 1974, che nel film viene improvvisamente cancellato. Un «Last Waltz» che l’ottantunenne Bob Altman dirige con la fermezza del grande regista che è” (Giancarlo Zappoli).

Come in Nashville e I protagonisti un cast stellare e una moltitudine di storie intrecciate: un vero microcosmo non solo per la consueta riflessione sul mondo dello spettacolo ma soprattutto per rappresentare una nazione invecchiata in cerca di una nuova identità. Giustamente MyMovies esalta la voglia politica (nel senso più positivo del termine) di raccontare un pezzo di America che finisce con il rappresentarla tutta… la straordinaria capacità di seguire un numero considerevole di personaggi senza perderne di vista uno e dando ad ognuno una sua consistenza. Impossibile non dare ragione, sottolinea Il Messagero, “a Meryl Streep quando si dice fiera dell’idea che il film porterà nel mondo un’immagine dell’America, oggi generalmente poco amata al di fuori dei suoi confini, molto diversa da quella che purtroppo si è imposta in questi anni”. Con sarcasmo (ma soprattutto con tenerezza) un addio a un mondo in estinzione, un ritratto di una America autentica che qualcuno vuole cancellare. Malinconico affresco con tanta nostalgia per un Paese vitalistico ed innocente che non c’è più. Ma Robert Altman non ricatta lo spettatore, rifugge dall’offrire facili emozioni. Crepuscolare, ironico, agrodolce, malinconico, contemporaneo… Radio America è un film di grande classe che sorprende per la sua delicatezza, per l’equilibrio, per la sottile raffinata inquietudine che riesce a trasmettere coinvolgendo il pubblico come raramente accade. Il grande regista, con lucido distacco, non rimpiange: descrive. “Il rimpianto si forma, caso mai, nello spettatore” (Il Giornale). Con una favolosa colonna sonora che va dal country al gospel e al jazz, con battute spiritose ed intelligenti, con gag misuratissime e calibrate al massimo, con un cast che fa scintille (quanto di meglio si sia visto nelle ultime stagioni, con una Meryl Streep dalle strabilianti doti canore e giustamente premiata ai National Society of Film Critics Awards, un Kevin Kline di cui Raymond Chandler si sarebbe sicuramente innamorato, un Woody Harrelson e un John C. Reilly affiatatissimi e autoironici…), con quella caffetteria che pare fotocopiata dai quadri di Edward Hopper, con quel teatro Fitzgerald che sta per essere smantellato ma che sembra essere diventato la tua casa, Radio America (meritoriamente accolto con una ovazione generale al 56° Festival di Berlino) illustra la fine di un’epoca che è anche il tramonto di un’intera civiltà e ci offre, al contempo, un campionario di valori e sentimenti in cui è impossibile non riconoscersi: “alla fine travolti dall’emozione, bisogna darsi dei pizzicotti per ricordare che non possiamo correre in palcoscenico ad abbracciare tutti, Altman incluso” (Corriere della Sera).

scheda

premi e riconoscimenti

By Conspiracy Theorist Nicola Novakowsky

If any of you have heard of the Slender Man, then you might already be dead. But in case you’re not, I hope you’re in hiding. The Slender Man is a very tall slender faceless man. He usually lives out in the forests (any forest, mind you) usually near schools just so he can kidnap children. It’s unclear what happens to children when they’re kidnapped but few have ever returned. The few that have returned usually do not remember the actual experience but they do have indications of trauma.

Lock your children in the closet!

Sometimes, before the Slender Man kidnaps, children report having dreams of the Slender Man kidnapping them. Often, just like in the movies, the parents do not believe the kid. Stupid parents, listen to your kids, no matter how impossible their story is. If your kid told you that she traveled faster than light, she probably did.

So who is this Slender Man? Honestly, if I had to make a guess, I’d say he’s probably the newest addition to the sinister Men in Black. I say this for two reasons: (1) the Slender Man dresses in black just like the Men in Black and (2) he shape shifts into Reptoids just like MIBs.

Some suspect that kids are being kidnapped by the Slender Man in order to social engineer a race of humans that only preach One World Government agendas. I’m inclined to believe this hypothesis, especially since so many pro-One World Government people keep popping up everyday. Where on Earth do weird, crazed, and sinister people like Rahm Emanuel come from? Clearly, those kinds of people could only be produced by years of intense Re-education Camps indoctrinating them with Illuminati Zeal.

I hope that you spread the message of the Slender Man as soon as you can. He isn’t just known to kidnap children. Adults also go missing (the few adults who actually believe what the children are saying). The adults usually go missing not long after they mention his name as a matter of fact. So please spread this message as soon as you can and maybe we can stop this ultimate Reptilian One World Government plot once and for all.

As always, do your own research and discover your own facts.

In my continued quest to see all the movies John Carpenter has ever written or directed (see my recent review of Someone’s Watching Me for more on the plan), I picked this one up recently and plopped it into the machine this afternoon.  Rainy days are great for scary movies, and I was hoping this one would fill that role nicely.

And it did, sort of.  That is, this is not really a “scary movie” so much as it’s a psychological thriller.  But, as with Someone’s Watching Me, it’s pretty effective at what it’s trying to do, which is put you on the edge of your seat.  Plus,  it’s got a lot of really cool camera effects, some seriously fun 70’s hair and clothes, and, added bonus!  A REALLY young Tommy Lee Jones.  Complete with dashing 70’s (pre-”Manscaping”) unibrow action!  Mrrrowl!

Laura Mars (an also very-young Faye Dunaway) is a rich-and-famous photographer, whose photos are both compelling and extremely controversial.  Her subjects tend to be scantily clad young women posed in horrifying scenes of violence:  being beaten, being attacked by animals, looking like they’re dead, stuff like that.  Some of her critics say she’s glorifying violence against women, death, and even murder.  But Mars contends her aim is actually the opposite: to make people stop thinking of violence as anything worthy of “glory” to begin with.

For some reason, and I wasn’t clear on just why (though it’s probably better not to ask, I suppose), Laura suddenly starts getting psychic visions.  It begins with the vision of a young woman being viciously murdered, one of her models.  At first, she doesn’t trust what she’s seeing and assumes it was a hallucination of some kind.  But when it happens again — again she sees a murder through what appear to be the eyes of the killer himself — she goes to the police.  Detective John Neville (Jones and his brow) is assigned to her case and initially believes her to be a complete crackpot.  But when the serial killer continues, knocking off people progressively closer and closer to Mars herself, Mars continues to witness every single attack while it is taking place.  She has details she clearly could only have gotten one of two ways:  she’s either the murderer herself, or she’s having the psychic visions she says she’s having.

Eventually, Neville starts to believe her, and the two become close (and then fall in love) while they struggle to find the killer and stop him before he gets to Laura herself.  Now, the ending of this film had a twist I confess I found pretty hokey, in part because I’ve seen that same twist done at least a half-dozen times over the years and so I saw it coming and wasn’t too pleased when it actually arrived.   But I would imagine that in 1978, it was a fairly startling surprise to most movie-goers.  And the thing is, it was filmed with grace and acted well by both Dunaway and Jones, which went a long way towards making it swallow-able for me.

In fact, there are a lot of scenes in this movie that I felt were both filmed and acted beautifully.  The scene in which Laura and John first become intimate, for example, I found extremely moving and absolutely gorgeous.  Wonderful angles, lots of authentic tenderness for each other, etc.  The only problem was that it went on about five minutes too long, as did several semi-sluggish scenes in the middle of the film.   However, when the movie is “on,” it’s extremely suspenseful and entertaining.  A lot of it may feel somewhat cheesy to modern viewers, as would a lot of the scenes and acting in Someone’s Watching Me, I’m sure.  But, overall, I thought this was a very satisfying psychological thriller.  And dazam if Tommy Lee Jones wasn’t just sexy as hell in 1978.  Hottie McYummerson.

Definitely recommended, especially for viewers who like thrillers that aren’t crazy with the gory violence.  The murders are pretty tame compared to what we’re used to seeing these days.  And the best part?  You can actually watch this movie for free online — legally!  The full movie is available on the IMDb page (via a link to Crackle.com), and it’s also available for streaming on Watch Now for Netflix subscribers.  If you are in the mood for a good thriller this weekend, look no further!  (And then come back here and let me know what you thought!)

[Netflix me | Watch me online | Buy me]

Genre:  Thriller
Cast:  Faye Dunaway, Tommy Lee Jones, Brad Dourif, Rene Auberjonois, Raul Julia

By Conspiracy Theorist Nicola Novakowsky

If any of you have heard of John Rhodes, then you will know by now that this man is a persistent researcher in the area of Men in Black and Reptilians. His research alone has produced volumes of data that not only prove the existence of Men in Black but their ubiquitous presence and ill-intents.

Men in Black are often referred to as MIBs for short. Men in Black are not the kind of people portrayed in the movie Men in Black or Men in Black II. Actual MIBs have been reported to dematerialize and re-materialize through people’s walls. They have also been reported to shift in and out of a Reptilian state of identity.

Much more importantly, MIBs will harass you if you have observed a UFO. Most people complain about how people who have been visited by ETs have no physical evidence. Is it any wonder why with MIBs destroying people’s evidence and intimidating them from going public?! Look, I don’t completely buy most Zeta abductions stories. Because I think a lot of alien abduction stories are a Reptilian distraction. But, I do think that some must be true, otherwise, why would there be no evidence of aliens visiting us? Clearly the lack of evidence of aliens visiting us must mean that there are some Reptilians destroying evidence in the form of MIBs.

Do you know why no one except for Admiral Byrd has ever made it to the North and South Pole? Sure, some people have claimed to go to the poles because they’re either Reptilians or they’ve been brainwashed by Reptilians/human MIBs to think that there are actual poles rather than openings into the Earth. Essentially, the Men in Black are everywhere and they even keep people from knowing the truth of the hollow Earth.

The omnipresence of the MIBs can be explained by the fact that so many agencies under the umbrella of the United Nations and world governments hire Men in Black to silence any one world/Reptilian opposition. Men in Black can come in the form of Reptilians, humans, and even Sasquatch-like entities. Also, MIBs are employed simply to silence rational debate.

Recent reports of Men in Black claim that the MIBs now wear bright purple or even yellow uniforms. These more noticeable uniforms make Men in Black (or Men in Various Colors) look less ominous and less secretive. But it fools no one, especially the people who are daily harassed and told not to question authority.

I commend people like John Rhodes because they do a great service at getting to the bottom of what’s really happening out there in the world your government doesn’t want you to know about.

Always remember: Do your own research and discover your own facts.

El guionista Etan Coen, responsable de la descacharrante Tropic Thunder, ha sido contratado para escribir el libreto de Men in Black 3, secuela de la famosa saga de… ¿ciencia ficción humorística?. Los buenos resultados en taquilla de sus predecesoras habrían convencido a sus responsables de esta tercera intentona, para la que aún no han firmado ni el director Barry Sonnenfeld ni los actores Tommy Lee Jones y Will Smith. Convencer a Sonnenfeld puede ser el menor de los problemas de la producción, que sí lo tendría más complicado con Jones, ahora centrado en su faceta como director y con Smith, actualmente una de las mayores estrellas de Hollywood con la agenda llena de proyectos. Al parecer se pretende empezar a rodar esta tercera parte en la primavera de 2.010.

Para todos los fanaticos de Men In Black (hombres de negro), debo informarles que ya Columbia Pictures contrato un guionista para la 3 entrega de la pelicula.

Se trata de Ethan Cohen, el mismo de Tropic Thunder, eso es todo lo que esta seguro hasta ahora.

De seguro se comenzara a firmar a mediados del 2010. Yo solo espero que hagan un mejor trabajo que “Men In Black 2″, porque la verdad eso fue una porqueria. Según la fuente de la noticia aún no estan confirmados ni Will Smith, ni  Tommy Lee Jones, pero todos sabemos que tienen por obligación protagonizar la pelicula.

Men In Black

Reensaiem a coreografia… De acordo com o JB Online, a Sony Pictures está preparando “MIB 3″, o terceiro filme da franquia dos “homens de preto”:

Os homens de preto vão entrar em ação novamente. (…) Etan Cohen, que assina o roteiro de “Trovão Tropical”, está escrevendo a história, e há rumores de que Barry Sonenfeld, que dirigiu os dois primeiros filmes da série, estaria se preparando para repetir a dose, embora ainda não haja acordo ou oferta formal nesse sentido.

O estúdio quer iniciar a produção em 2010.

O fator desconhecido ainda é Will Smith. O ator ainda não se comprometeu a fazer o terceiro, embora nos últimos dias venha circulando que ele esteja interessado em voltar. O envolvimento de Tommy Lee Jones também é incerto.

Leia mais clicando aqui.

Se você gostou dos dois primeiros  MIB  pode ir começando a se animar, segundo o site Terra a Sony prometeu começar as filmagens de Homens de Preto 3 em 2010.

Uma continuação é mais que esperada já que juntos os dois filmes arrecadaram mais de  1,1 bilhão de dólares em todo o mundo.

A notícia que não gostei foi que Etan Cohen, que assina o roteiro de Trovão Tropical esta escrevendo a historia… eu honestamente não gostei de Trovão Tropical, se quiser saber sobre o filme clique aqui. Voltando ao assunto…

Outra duvida é se os atores principais voltaram a franquia, Will Smith aparentemente vem demonstrando interesse em voltar já Tommy Lee Jones é uma incógnita.

Vamos torcer que a continuação seja bem feita e honre os dois primeiros filmes, isso se realmente sair do papel.

Gostou da notícia ?

Comente